Botan and Taylor (2004) recognise that the “functionalist perspective, prevalent in the early years of the field, sees publics and communication as tools or means to achieve organisational ends” (Botan & Taylor 2004, p. 651). As HPR’s task was to create hype, awareness and secure initial investors to CST’s listing – rather than necessarily co-create meaning, and thus relationships – it can be seen that models associated with the functionalist approach were key in HPR’s charge to fulfil their clients brief. Utilising HPR’s award winning campaign as a guide, the following essay details the functionalist approach to public relations, before connecting examples from the campaign to the theoretical underpinnings of media relations in order to show how the functionalist approach can make the shift from text book to the practical world of the discipline. Furthermore, the essay considers strengths and shortcomings of the functionalist approach, before discussing its future viability and use in the public relations profession.
Simply put, “the focus (of the functionalist perspective) is generally on techniques and production of strategic organisational messages”, with “the major relationship of interest between the public relations practitioners and the media” (Botan and Taylor 2004, p. 651). Viewed as cutting edge in the 1980s, the functionalist approach is dominated by practice and theory developed in the USA (Stanton 2007, p. 9). The effective utilisation of media channels is paramount; with Ihlen and van Ruler (2007) noting the functionalistic approach is rooted in mass communication theory (Ihlen & van Ruler 2007, p. 244). Among others, “theories of media relations, the information subsidy, agenda setting and persuasion contribute to this functional perspective” (Botan & Taylor 2004, p. 651). Grunig’s models of press agentry, public information, and two-way asymmetric communication, can therefore be seen to be upon the pulse of the functionalist approach. In addition, “research from a functionalist perspective has traditionally been concerned with business-orientated topics such as advertising, marketing, and (crucially), media relations” (Botan & Taylor 2004, p. 651).
It is important to delve deeper into the media relations model to understand how it embodies the functionalist perspective, and also because this was the key communication model used in HPR’s CST campaign. As Stanton (2007) recognises, “media is business, and business works in a very different way to personal relationship building” (Stanton 2007, p. 17). As such, “competition for media space means we must be strategic” (Stanton 2007, p. 17), and this includes presenting compelling communication and content to the media in order to gain exposure through the ubiquitous channel. Media relations includes – but is not limited to – such ideas as packaging content for media use, subsidising content, providing talent for interviews and providing suggestive questions for a planned response. It extends to compiling media lists and building relationships with targeted media in order to achieve organisational ends. Stanton (2007) puts it best when he says the functionalist media relations model is a “conscious decision to take a direction and attempt to attain the objectives along the path of the direction taken” (Stanton 2007, p. 40). Research as how to best utilise a media relations campaign extends “only insofar as it advances organisational goals” (Botan & Taylor 2004, p. 651), with the feedback gathered “used to tailor the message in order to better persuade, rather than to alter the organisation’s position” (Kirby 2009, p. 42).
HPR’s CST campaign highlights and embodies how media relations, and the functionalist perspective, can be put into practical use. Considering the objectives and rationale that overarched the CST campaign, HPR “fine-tuned” Stehr as the spokesman for the company, “offering the media a key spokesman who was at the coal face of the project [and] equipping him with media training and key messages as required to ensure consistency of information flow” (HPR 2006). HPR “developed a targeted media list, which was used as a tool in drip-feeding news releases and other opportunities to interested and responsive journalists”, while “the publicity aspect of the communication plan commenced with a general corporate profile on Stehr and his highly successful aquaculture company” (HPR 2006).
HPR (2006) note their media relations campaign achieved “extensive coverage” in print, radio and television both nationally and internationally, generating “a ripple effect throughout the Australian and overseas investor communities” (HPR 2006). Six months after HPR had been hired, “the consultancy announced Clean Seas’ historic and successful ASX listing at an 11 per cent premium” (HPR 2006). HPR’s campaign epitomises what Rowson (2001) recognises as the possible strengths available to organisations taking a media relations approach, including the ability “to raise your organisations profile with customers and potential customers”, “motivate employees”, “raise the credibility of your organisation” and “reinforce the messages you are putting out through your other marketing tools” (Rowson 2001, p. 10).
Yet despite the model also providing a relatively economical way to reach a potential audience of billions, the functionalist media relations approach is not without possible peril. Indeed, Kirby (2009) highlights noise is an important concept to consider. Pierson-Smith (2002) adds that “communications can breakdown resulting in a distortion of the PR message due to a variety of factors including physical channel noise, psychological noise exercised by the selective receiver, semantic noise due to linguistic misunderstandings, information overload or time constraints” (Pierson-Smith 2002, p. 167). Indeed, while some aspects of a media campaign can be “controlled”, Stanton (2007) recognises the threat of “uncontrolled media” as agents “who stand between a media relations campaign and the desired recipients of its aims and goals” (Stanton 2007, p. 5). This is epitomised by the ideas presented by Bourdieu (2005, in Benson & Neveu) concerning agents and forces occupying and contesting in spaces (fields). The unwillingness to co-create meaning with potential and realised stakeholders is another defining weakness of the functionalist approach, as is James’ (2009) recognition that “from the earliest days of James Grunig’s work, there has been a rejection of persuasion, influence and related areas as inherently manipulative and unethical” (James 2009, p. 112).
The HPR example highlights that many of the methods which represent the functionalist perspective, not least media relations, remain both viable and applicable in public relations today. While Botan and Taylor (2004) state “the most striking trend in public relations over the past 20 years [has been] its transition from a functional perspective to a co-creational one” (Botan & Taylor, 2004, p. 651), James (2009) has called for the functionalist approach to public relations theory to be reconsidered, due to the fact “work in critical and postmodern public relations scholarship has highlighted the idealistic nature of ‘symmetrical’ communication” (James 2009, p. 111). Pierson-Smith (2002, p. 168) acknowledges that practitioners and academics alike believe the future of public relations lies, in part, in the disciplines ability to adhere to ethical codes of practice. Therefore the challenge for the future of the functionalist perspective may rest in its ability to be one that advances the ends of all stakeholders, rather than merely the organisations. Ultimately, more research needs to be undertaken and “debates must go forward for the field itself to go forward” (Gower 2006, p. 357).
References:
Botan, C & Taylor, M 2004, ‘Public Relations: State of the Field’, Journal of Communication, vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 645-661.
Bourdieu, P 2005, ‘The Political Field, the Social Science Field and the Journalistic Field’, in R Benson & E Neveu (eds), Bourdieu and the Journalistic Field, Polity, Cambridge, England.
Gower, K 2006, ‘Public Relations Research at the Crossroads’, Journal of Public Relations Research, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 177-190.
Hughes Public Relations (HPR) 2006, ‘Clean Seas – Fishing for Investors’, PRIA Golden Targets Award Database – UTS Library, viewed 15 October 2010,
Ihlen, O & van Ruler, B 2007, ‘How public relations works: Theoretical roots and public relations perspectives’, Public Relations Review, vol. 33, pp. 243-248.
James, M 2009, ‘Getting to the heart of public relations: the concept of strategic intent’, Asia Pacific Public Relations Journal, vol. 10, pp. 109-122.
Kirby, B 2009, ‘Overview of Contemporary Public Relations Theory’, in B Sheehan & R Xavier (eds), Public Relations Campaigns, Oxford, South Melbourne, pp. 31-52.
Pierson-Smith, A 2002, ‘An overview of public relations: what it is, when it is needed, why it is used and how to analyse it, Perspectives: working papers in English and communication, vol. 14, no. 2.
Rowson, P 2001, Building a Positive Media Profile, Rowbark Publishing Limited, Hampshire, UK.
Stanton, R 2007, Media Relations, Oxford University Press, New York.
No comments:
Post a Comment